why do you vote FF/FG

nesf

T runner wrote: »

I think FF voters find it very difficult to change to FG.

This I agree with, both sides of the FF/FG divide would find it harder to vote for the other side than to vote for any of the other parties. I know a few long term FF voters who are really pissed off with the way the Government is handling things and when I asked if they'd vote FG in the next election (it being very much a two horse race in their particular constituency) they told me they'd probably just not vote at all.

I can't really relate to it but for the generation past, it was quite a bitter divide between the two parties for many years in many areas of the country where Labour et al didn't have any real presence.

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

I took issue with more than one line of your post, I just didn't feel like arguing about every part of it.

Fair enough I guess.

Essentially power corrupts, and it's easy to stand against corruption when you've been out of power for over a decade.

It does, and like I said I don't expect for one minute that everyone in FG is and will always remain squeaky clean. But when a party goes out of its way to present itself as standing for honesty and standards in public office, it's unlikely that the party as a whole would tolerate corruption. It's not the fact that some TDs are corrupt that bothers me (although it'd be nice if they weren't), it's when there are no repercussions for the corruption when it's discovered.

bigstar wrote:

Breezer at least you have some reasons but it sounds like you think FG are a better version of FF and would simply be better. thats not a strong argument either.

Well, what would you consider a strong argument? There's no point in denying that they are both centrist parties. Now, I don't want a party with a strong ideological base being the largest in the country, because I believe that such a party can sometimes be blinded by that ideology (America under Bush, for example). My vote would therefore naturally go to either FF, FG, or some elements within Labour (which presents itself as a socialist party but in reality is also a broad church). I've highlighted some key differences between FF and FG that form part of the reason for my belief that FG are a superior choice to FF (who I do not believe are fit to run this country at the present time). As for Labour, depending on the candidate, I would be likely to give them a second preference. Since in my case the candidate is Gilmore, I more than likely will.

bigstar

id love to start a spoil your vote campaign, imagine if more people spoiled their vote than voted for a politician. to be honest if that happened i really dont think anyone would care too much they be busy congratulating themselves for getting elected. anyway from the looks of this thread not many have a good reason to vote or any reason at all to vote either FF/FG. i hope gilmore gets labour to become a viable alternative.

bigstar

to breezer: i dont think there is a strong argument for either, thats why i wanted to know why people chose one over the other. to be honest i see FG as a more worthy party. theres not many FF politicians i would like, i thought seamas brennan was a decent man. im surprised there hasnt been any real argument put forward from FF supporters.

Breezer

bigstar wrote: »

to breezer: i dont think there is a strong argument for either, thats why i wanted to know why people chose one over the other. to be honest i see FG as a more worthy party. theres not many FF politicians i would like, i thought seamas brennan was a decent man. im surprised there hasnt been any real argument put forward from FF supporters.

They don't have much to say these days. And fair enough if you don't agree with the arguments that have been put forward, a lot comes down to personal viewpoint. If everyone agreed then we might as well have a one party state.

ninty9er

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I was told by a prominent member of Fianna Fail that there would be a FF Labour government which at the time a lot of Labour people would have agreed with it but apparantly Pat Rabbitte would not budge.

A Fianna Fáil/ Labour Coalition was what middle Ireland told me it wanted on the doorsteps, it is what I wanted and it is what the majority of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party wanted, but the DL element of Labour wouldn't have any of it. The talks did take place.

nesf wrote: »

When FG have been in power for as long as FF have, you can say that. Otherwise it's just hurling from the ditch tbh.

+1

Breezer wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but I can't accept that really. Power corrupts, yes, but my point wasn't that no single FG politician would ever be corrupted (history would have proven me wrong in that case), but that the party as an entity would not stand for it. Honest politics is one of FG's core principles. Am I still hurling from the ditch? Maybe you'll say so, and fair enough, I can't prove otherwise, but I think the fact that you only took issue with one line in my fairly long post speaks for itself.

If you pick Haughey as the starting point, there were numerous attempts to stop him. The Arms Crisis was the most triumphant time for the general membership of Fianna Fáil, with the Hillery speech highlighting party sentiment, the same could happen FG, that someone like that could come back and tar all their successors with the same brush.
Lowry was easy to get rid of somehow, I don't know, a serving member cabinet is difficult to get rid of without your coalition partner pulling out of the programme for government, but Bruton managed to pull it off. Considering Lowry was once Chair of the PP it would have been a difficult pill to swallow.

So no, the opportunity for power to corrupt is not beyond FG, nor is it beyond becoming embedded by a handful of people.

nesf wrote: »

This I agree with, both sides of the FF/FG divide would find it harder to vote for the other side than to vote for any of the other parties. I know a few long term FF voters who are really pissed off with the way the Government is handling things and when I asked if they'd vote FG in the next election (it being very much a two horse race in their particular constituency) they told me they'd probably just not vote at all.

I can't really relate to it but for the generation past, it was quite a bitter divide between the two parties for many years in many areas of the country where Labour et al didn't have any real presence.

My granparents voted FG all their lives until 2002 when they switched to FF 1st prefs, 1 because of a personal vote for a candidate, 2 because of the Irish "I'm alright jack" inherent attitude.

bigstar

you sound like a FF man/woman, why FF?

ninty9er

I'm a member.

You will have heard very few (though still there were some) people complaining of government waste for the last 15 years. Now everyone is turning on the government AFTER the fact.

Completely pointless.

Sorry for the long-windedness of the following droning:

Personally, me or anyone I know who has contacted a TD/councillor to have something looked into or arrange a meeting to help with forms has only ever gotten a response from FF representatives with ONE exception for an independent councillor.

Even though the FG parliamentary party is quite young, the efforts made by FG to appeal to me as a young voter fail miserably.

It's not that FF does much better, but it doesn't come across as disingenuous and try to be "down wiv the yoof".

I looked at a lot of what FG said before I became a memebr of FF and if I hadn't joined FF I would have joined Labour.

Looking at the last election, I used my own gut instinct. I knew neither party could fulfil the promises it was making, but I was glad the one I had to defend would realistically try to fulfil more of its promises.

I had a spa attack at Citywest during Bertie's Ard-Fheis speech where he announced tax cuts, which weren't then nor are they now viable for a country in our position. We are NOT the UK and their solutions are not the answer to all of our problems.

I was personally very happy with the aims of the budget, but have been bitterly disappointed by u-turns. I have personally made ministers aware of this. I can stand the O'Keeffe one as it's temporary until the end of the academic year.

I would like to see a move towards centralised major hospital services, which is currently happening with cancer, that provides the best care as opposed to the most convenient care. I have personal experience of my nanna spending weeks in St. Lukes away from home, but rather that than treatment from generalised less-experienced teams in Limerick.

I would like to see a move towards a welfare clampdown, and while it only applies to a not insignificant minority, I believe that there is waste in the welfar system by providing cash as opposed to food vouchers, clothes vouchers etc for the long term unemployed.

I believe in Ireland as a Nation and as a State, and in our ability to lead the world in areas of finance and innovation, however this is going to take decades to effect and I want to be part of the party that makes it happen. I don't believe FG as a right wing, EPP member will be that party.

Finally, public service reform is needed but there is NO PARTY willing to take it on now, when there is most opportunity.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

You will have heard very few (though still there were some) people complaining of government waste for the last 15 years. Now everyone is turning on the government AFTER the fact.

That's rubbish and you know it. A quick trawl-back through newspapers would list reams of pure waste like non-working e-Voting machines, Bertie Bowl costs, refurbishing unused offices, make-up costs for Bertie, etc, etc.

ninty9er wrote: »

Haughey ....... someone like that could come back and tar all their successors with the same brush.

VERY simplistic, ninty9er; Lawlor, Burke, Cooper-Flynn & Ahern weren't "tarred" by Haughey; they dug their own holes all by themselves....

RiverWilde

I'd rather take a bolt cutters to my testicles than vote FF - they are a shower of self serving 'so long as we're alright' bunch of thugs.

Riv

bmaxi

T runner wrote: »

I accept that, I think thats true. These are some reasons perhaps.

Lack of Choice: Because people in other non political profession families are following family professions themselves people are not getting as much of a choice especially within Political Parties.

Blind party loyalty:
I come from a FF voting family. I like to think I have my own mind politically now, but when there was a debate my immediate reaction was previously a powerful urge to defend the FF side.

This party support was ingrained in me I guess. Ive even defended the less than admirable track records myself. What happens is the person always has the premise that their PP is right and thus will always try and support/defend that position. By necessity the less than admirable traits are usually rationalised away in order to maintain the integrity of the initial premise (FF TDs good). Only when faced with overwhelming evidence will these bad traits be accepted, but then only in the individual rarely in the party. Sometimes the rationalising even turns to: the good the person does is greater than the
bad. You have to take the bad with the good sometimes, etc..

Anyway the point is these loyalties are very powerful. Viewed from the outside: voting for or even defending someone who is obviously dodgy may look irrational (because it is). However, the person themselves are blinded to these rational reasons by their loyalties.

I think this loyalty may be stronger in FF than FG.
I would find it very difficult to vote FG now because of this ingraining.

You see, this is the part that really saddens and irritates me. Blind loyalty, to what? Before the last General Election, a colleague of mine, a member of F.F. referred to the local FG candidate as a "blueshirt". WTF! is this 2008 or not? Both he and the F.G. candidate are in their 30's for God's sake.
The same man had no difficulty in supporting, in the local elections, a candidate who had been expelled from the F.F. party for fraud and who was also discovered to have "manipulated the planning process" with respect to land which he owned, he was subsequently readmitted to FF and is currently a serving FF councillor.
This whole attitude to wrongdoing is the main reason I will never give a No.1 vote to FF, I know the other political parties are not blameless but FF seem to treat it as, to paraphrase Albert Reynolds, a temporary little aberration, punishable by a slap on the wrist and withdrawal of the whip for a couple of weeks
The sooner people in Ireland cop on to themselves and start selecting their political representatives for their potential to serve the country and not the party, the better.
Consign the concept of the, " safe FF or FG or whatever", seat to the dusbin of history and make your TD sweat for his seat rather than inherit it.

Frankie Lee

Many people will not vote FG because of the policies of their early years, mainly protecting the land owners and then the fascism of the thirties.

Common sense would entail that the party has moved on but why would anybody join a party that had this in their history.

T runner

bmaxi wrote: »

You see, this is the part that really saddens and irritates me. Blind loyalty, to what? Before the last General Election, a colleague of mine, a member of F.F. referred to the local FG candidate as a "blueshirt". WTF! is this 2008 or not? Both he and the F.G. candidate are in their 30's for God's sake.
The same man had no difficulty in supporting, in the local elections, a candidate who had been expelled from the F.F. party for fraud and who was also discovered to have "manipulated the planning process" with respect to land which he owned, he was subsequently readmitted to FF and is currently a serving FF councillor.
This whole attitude to wrongdoing is the main reason I will never give a No.1 vote to FF, I know the other political parties are not blameless but FF seem to treat it as, to paraphrase Albert Reynolds, a temporary little aberration, punishable by a slap on the wrist and withdrawal of the whip for a couple of weeks
The sooner people in Ireland cop on to themselves and start selecting their political representatives for their potential to serve the country and not the party, the better.
Consign the concept of the, " safe FF or FG or whatever", seat to the dusbin of history and make your TD sweat for his seat rather than inherit it.

I agree 100%.

I would hope for a situation where the choices in an election booth would consist of people who are genuinely interested and moved and good enough to making a difference through politics.

Also that all people who meet the criteria above would actually try to get involved.

The dearth of talent points to the fact that only a minority of this type of person is getting involved in the present political culture.

The following is an excellent example of current favourable criteria (across both parties) in nominating candidates.

From Donegalfella:

When I saw Joe McHugh (FG) breaking through in Donegal with an impressive poll-topping win, I thought he was a genuine fresh face, someone who didn't hail from a long-standing political dynasty. Then somebody pointed out to me that in 2005, McHugh had married Olwyn Enright, the daughter of Tom Enright, who was first elected to the Dáil in 1969.... You see where this is going.

The nearest suitable male "relative" of Joe McHugh was nominated and elected.

Family Loyalties to parties and political families are still a powerful force in Ireland. Its sad and irritating but not easily rectified.

Breezer

Frankie Lee wrote: »

why would anybody join a party that had this in their history.

Because, as you said,

Common sense would entail that the party has moved on

Somehow I can't see Enda and the farmers exchanging straight arm salutes if/when he becomes Taoiseach.

KnifeWRENCH

ninty9er wrote: »

A Fianna Fáil/ Labour Coalition was what middle Ireland told me it wanted on the doorsteps, it is what I wanted and it is what the majority of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party wanted, but the DL element of Labour wouldn't have any of it. The talks did take place.

I would certainly be very happy with a FF/Labour coalition. In the next election, I will most likely give my first preference vote for one of those parties.

FG describe themselves as "Christian Democracy" - that alone is enough to put me off voting for them. Religion should be kept out of politics as far as I'm concerned. I also think FG are too far right of centre for my liking, I'd prefer a centrist party like FF or moderate left-wing party like Labour in power.
Also, I just don't see Enda Kenny, Richard Bruton or any of the prominent FG TD's as Taoiseach material. They can bitch and moan about FF all they like, but would they really bring anything different?

People will say things like "Sure Enda Kenny might be the best leader the country has ever had, you won't know until you give him a chance." That may be true, but when my instinct is telling me he won't, why should I give him a chance? Just because he's not FF?

So unless FG do something drastic to win me over, my voting preference remains:
FF, Labour, Sinn Fein, Greens, FG.

The only thing that would put me off voting FF is that one of our local FF TDs is a bit....unpredictable. (He's the rebel backbencher who gave out about Babe having bad effects on the pig industry!)

bigstar

FF and FG are both centrist parties, maybe FG are a bit more right economically, but with the FF/PD coalition they are very similar ideologically. you list your prefs FF 1st FG last when they are very similar parties. i dont understand that, i dont see a reason for one over the other. to me you just hate FG and love FF. that has nothing to do with politics, just everything to do with irish politics. and by the way garret fitzgerald former leader of the christian democratic party tried to introduce divorce in the eighties, im sure the church thought that was very christian, so lets not reduce this to mud slinging

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

VERY simplistic, ninty9er; Lawlor, Burke, Cooper-Flynn & Ahern weren't "tarred" by Haughey; they dug their own holes all by themselves....

There have been over 150 more people through the Dáil under an FF whip since the 70s.....should they all be tarred the same?

Very simplistic my arse.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

There have been over 150 more people through the Dáil under an FF whip since the 70s.....should they all be tarred the same?

Very simplistic my arse.

Your statement was that FF's members were all tarred by Haughey.

To answer your question, no, not everyone should be tarred by Haughey, HOWEVER.....

1) My statement was that none of the names I mentioned were tarred by THEIR OWN ACTIONS, not Haughey.

2) The fact that FF has tolerated, defended, re-admitted and promoted these scum instead of weeding them out DOES reflect on the whole party.

So I'll stand over what I said; you were being very simplistic. The names I mentioned were not tarred by Haughey's actions, and the whole party wasn't tarred by him - if they'd weeded out the scum and proven that it was a once-off, they'd have been fine. But the party has REPEATEDLY tolerated and defended this sort of thing, and THAT'S what has tarred the party.

So that's why blaming it all on Haughey was inaccurate and simplistic.

The day that FF starts turfing out idiots, incompetents and criminals - without being forced to - is the day they start to regain respectability.

MG

square_igloo wrote: »

FG describe themselves as "Christian Democracy" - that alone is enough to put me off voting for them. Religion should be kept out of politics as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think the term "Christan Democracy" should be taken as a religious issue. Modern Christian Democracy is rather about the ethos and traditions of the western (& mostly Christian) world - democracy, free enterprise, social conscience etc and is effectively another term for a centre or right of centre party.

In fact, in Irish terms FG have recently been much less in the pockets of the Church than FF. Garrett Fitzgerald's attempted liberalisation of contraception and divorce were against Catholic teaching and in contrast to Dev's vision of Ireland. Perhaps the last gasp of religion as a major factor in Irish party political life was FF's deal on abuse compensation which largely protected the Church from it's true obligations. Religion is no longer a significant factor in any major political party (though it may have had a large influence on the Lisbon treaty and may be something to watch if Libertas runs in elections)

KnifeWRENCH

bigstar wrote: »

FF and FG are both centrist parties, maybe FG are a bit more right economically, but with the FF/PD coalition they are very similar ideologically. you list your prefs FF 1st FG last when they are very similar parties. i dont understand that, i dont see a reason for one over the other. to me you just hate FG and love FF. that has nothing to do with politics, just everything to do with irish politics.

I neither love FF nor hate FG, I just do not have any confidence in FG as they are now. If in 10 or 20 years time FG are led by someone who's dynamic, has good ideas and who I think might be a good leader, I would certainly consider voting for them.
At local level I have no particular opinion of our current FG TD. I would rather give my vote to either Labour or one of the FF TD's because I am more familiar with them and the work that they do.

As for FF, I like some and dislike others. I'm relatively happy with Brian Cowen as Taoiseach, but I do not want Mary Coughlan as Tanaiste.

bigstar wrote:

and by the way garret fitzgerald former leader of the christian democratic party tried to introduce divorce in the eighties, im sure the church thought that was very christian, so lets not reduce this to mud slinging

Mud slinging? I have no intention of mud slinging. All I said was that I'd rather a political party didn't have a specific religious ideology.

eoinbn

ninty9er wrote: »

Finally, public service reform is needed but there is NO PARTY willing to take it on now, when there is most opportunity.

The time for reform was over the last 10 years, not now. This is similar to where General motors find themselves today, where their reforms were rejected by unions 10 years ago, costing the company $2b in strikes, and now they find themselves only a few weeks from going under. Good reform takes place before it's needed, just like Aer Lingus are doing atm. But FF will always be FF, avoid conflict at all costs and hope it all works out in the end.

irish_bob

eoinbn wrote: »

The time for reform was over the last 10 years, not now. This is similar to where General motors find themselves today, where their reforms were rejected by unions 10 years ago, costing the company $2b in strikes, and now they find themselves only a few weeks from going under. Good reform takes place before it's needed, just like Aer Lingus are doing atm. But FF will always be FF, avoid conflict at all costs and hope it all works out in the end.

spoken like a true public servant , now is not the time for public service reform ( quote)

eoinbn

irish_bob wrote: »

spoken like a true public servant , now is not the time for public service reform ( quote)

We still need the reform, but it's should of been done over the last 10 years when we had the money as incentives.

irish_bob

eoinbn wrote: »

We still need the reform, but it's should of been done over the last 10 years when we had the money as incentives.

and i should have started going to the gymn 10 years ago , the past is the past , nice to see that you agree we do need reform though , 2 posts ago you said now was not the time for it , thats progress

eoinbn

irish_bob wrote: »

and i should have started going to the gymn 10 years ago , the past is the past , nice to see that you agree we do need reform though , 2 posts ago you said now was not the time for it , thats progress

You are taking it out of context. Ninty9er was suggesting that this is a most opportunist time for reform, i disagreed. Good management/governments push for reform before it's needed.

Húrin

nesf wrote: »

When FG have been in power for as long as FF have, you can say that. Otherwise it's just hurling from the ditch tbh.

Sounds like a good argument to elect them into power to me!

bigstar wrote: »

you see thats the problem most of us dont seem to vote for a party we like just one we dont hate more than the other

That's why parties based on issues, such as Labour, the Greens etc exist. So that people get to vote for something rather than just against.

link8r wrote: »

I just can't stand Captain Boring (Enda Kenny). I'd vote FF every time until there was no-one left to stand. FG has been made up of the most boring, unimaginative whingers.

Does this mean you think FF are imaginative, charismatic or competent?

MG

square_igloo wrote: »

All I said was that I'd rather a political party didn't have a specific religious ideology.

I suggest you take up the matter with Alan Shatter